[Politics]The Right to Arm Bears in a Crowded Theater

[Kaelik]

You have a good point with the disarming of patrol cops, but it would still be weird. It would mean that patrol cops are just regulated paid witnesses. Seriously, what do they do if all they can do when they see an armed perp is call the next level up?

When resisting arrest with a firearm, or the use of a firearm in a crime is punishable by life in prison, most criminals will not use guns.

Most criminals will still be subdued and arrested by cops, who will still do things like perform stings, investigate crimes, respond to calls about robberies that don't feature "And he has a gun." Respond to domestic abuse calls, drive around and impose order by their mere presence, ect.

IE, all the stuff they do now that isn't just witness crimes and doesn't require having a gun.

[Prak]

Like I said above, my mental image of police work is formed by bad cop dramas, and, yes, it's fucking stupid.

[Username17]

There are a lot of police in New York, and they fired their guns 92 times (in total) in 2010. I think it's pretty clear that the pistols are a waste of resources and that we'd be better off spending those resources on using SWAT more.

If you're going to use deadly force, it should be overwhelming deadly force. SWAT has a purpose. But I can't see why I would want people running around with weapons that weren't longarms.

-Username17

[Josh_Kablack]

Jesus holding an assault rifle

Blasphemy!!

Everyone knows Jesus uses a Colt 1911

[erik]

Rifles are kind of handy for reducing deer population. I suppose that might be one rational reason to keep em around.

The dumbasses who only hunt for trophy bucks don't help, but I do know hunters who specifically hunt does for meat. And in fact the DNR does the sensible thing and has different limits on buck vs. doe (generally 1 buck a year, but different counties have different limits on does).

I don't know if I would want all rifles outlawed since I have deer enough as it is. My poor rosebuds. Deer candy.

[Chamomile]

I could actually see a lot of justification for only outlawing easily concealed weapons. These weapons are by far most useful to criminals and least useful for hunting, home protection, and even the militias that Libertarians are convinced we need.

[Prak]

Except for Northern Ireland, fully automatic (submachine-guns, etc.) and self-loading (semi-automatic) weapons of calibre larger than .22 rimfire are totally banned, pistols are limited to .22 calibre in short barrel, while calibres up to .357 magnum are allowed in long barrel pistols (of total length at least 60cm)[14]. All other rifles and their ammunition are permitted with good reason, which may include target shooting, hunting, and historic and black powder weapons, but not self-defence. Shotgun ownership and use is controlled, and even low-power air rifles and pistols, while permitted, are controlled to some extent. A firearms certificate issued by the police is required for all weapons and ammunition except air weapons of modest power (of muzzle energy not over 12ft·lbf for rifles, and 6ft·lbf for pistols). Shotguns with a capacity of three rounds or less (up to guns with a magazine holding no more than two rounds, in addition to one in the chamber) are subject to less stringent licensing requirements than other firearms; shotguns with higher capacity require a Firearms Certificate.

Possession of a live firearms round can lead to severe penalties. Shotgun cartridges can be possessed by anybody over the age of 17 but a Shotgun Licence is required for purchase.

Gun rights being one of the last pieces of my conservative upbringing to stick around, I'd actually be ok with this sort of control. A license, issued by police after suitable justification is presented, required to own and purchase a gun, and rifles/short pistols above .22 and long pistols above .357 magnum being banned makes it harder for people to go on shooting sprees, while allowing sport shooting, hunting, and pest control. Hell, if you can't accomplish something in one or two shots, you probably shouldn't fucking own a gun in the first place. Three shells in a rifle should be more than enough to hunt some birds, and scare off a criminal if you really feel the need. Fuck, an unloaded shotgun, or one loaded with blanks, is just as good for intimidation as a loaded one, because the sound will make most people crap their pants and run for the hills.

I could actually see a lot of justification for only outlawing easily concealed weapons. These weapons are by far most useful to criminals and least useful for hunting, home protection, and even the militias that Libertarians are convinced we need.

Yeah, I could see that as well. I do know of a few anecdotes where a person carrying a pistol on their person did stop a crime, but usually it's fairly clear that the person was likely ex-military, ex-swat, or the like, and generally speaking, I think such people can be trusted to own guns and know what the fuck to do if they see a crime in progress. So perhaps a focus on banning easily concealed, and large magazine automatic and semiautomatic guns, with perhaps a variance for retired military, federal law enforcement and swat would work.

edit: also, I wouldn't mind seeing regular psychological examination being required to keep your license valid. Give licenses for 5 years, and require a psychological examination every year, at no cost to the person, by a psychologist employed by the local police department, with clearly stated "if you don't pass, or we have any cause for concern due to the results of your examination, your license will be suspended, pending further examination at a later date" standard.

The main anecdote I know of: Huffpo article with video. Though, admittedly, the man seems much less experienced and competent than my mother made him sound.

I also found an interesting summary of research on Fresno Pacific University's site.

[npc310]

Gun control laws apply only to law-abiding citizens. So the bad guys who kicked in my front door to rob my house are carrying, but I'm defenseless. I'm not interested in that.

Assault weapons are useful should we ever again need to rise up and overthrow a tyranical government. Admittedly, they'll have tanks and F-18s, but I'll take an AR-15 over only being able to yell "bang!".

Would things have been different in Germany in the 1930s if the citizens had been armed? Maybe, maybe not. Probably not different in a meaningful way significant enough for the history books. There was a resistance movement fighting back, and they did save lives. They were armed. Could they have done that with rocks and sticks? Probably not.

[Koumei]

we'd be better off spending those resources on using SWAT more.

More? They already try to justify their budget by deploying SWAT teams to nab people suspected of non-violent crimes that society just condemns (possessing/distributing child pornography is a terrible thing, something that should certainly lead to significant jail time, but it isn't an actual risk in the sense of a hostage situation, you can just send some guys to their house, knock, show a warrant etc. without kicking the door in and unleashing teargas at 4AM). Or the heinous crime of "not having the proper import licence for the wood used for selling these imported guitars".

SWAT (and similar/equivalent things) gets used too much as it is, being used for things that a regular (unarmed) policeman could do just fine, simply because it makes good news/publicity and it helps justify giving them lots of money and cool toys. Whereas police doing their job well without gunning people down get pretty poor pay.

[Prak]

npc310- If you are really that concerned for your well being, by all means, feel free to break laws and own a howlitzer if it makes you feel safe. I think you're the person who whined about his house having been broken into, and the police having only gotten there like half an hour after your neighbour called, right? Tell me, what good would owning a gun have been in that situation? I mean, in all likelihood, it would have been on your home, so even if you had gotten home while they were still there, all it would mean is that they would have +1 firearms on them with which to threaten you. If you had a concealed carry, how likely would you have been to have actually had it on you? And what would have changed if they had finished and left before you got home? Are you planning on getting a shotgun and constructing an elabourate booby trap with which to catch robbers? 'cause I gotta tell you, that's illegal, whether ARs are or not.
However, you know what would, in all likelihood, have happened if you'd been home? They wouldn't have stolen your shit. Whether you had a gun or not, most thieves are going to run if they break in and find that that someone is there, gun or no.

I'm all for the "We need them in case we have to overthrow the government again!" argument, I'm with ya.
EXCEPT.
As you say, an AR isn't going to do anything against F18s and Tanks. If in the future we actually somehow have need to rise up and violently oppose our government, our best bet is through guerrilla strikes with explosives, after which we can steal their ordinance, and if we're fighting the government, we don't exactly give a shit about laws, now do we?

If you really feel threatened by the possibility of robbers breaking into your home, you would be better served by a large dog introduced to everyone you're comfortable with being in your home and some therapy than by any manner of gun, even if you were trained, because a large dog could offer much more than a gun ever could. A guard dog is good whether you're home or not. A guard dog will never be illegal. A guard dog can be trained to minimize the potential for hurting yourself or someone you care about. A guard dog is unlikely to kill your kid or his friend just because the kid wanted to show it to his friend. A guard dog also provides companionship, which only the most unstable people can get from a gun. And finally, if someone breaks in and you're shot, a dog can possibly go get help. A gun will just lie there where you dropped it.

[npc310]

Yeah, but a 357 Magnum won't shit on the floor.

Talking to the officer who came to interview me after my home was burglarized, he said that dogs usually run away. Robbers open the door, and the dog runs out, presumably to go mark the nearest fire hydrant. Pit bulls don't. They are more likely to attack. Trouble with them is that they don't only attack the bad guys. There are frequent stories on the evening news where I live about a toddler being mauled by the family pit. I can't honestly say I keep close track of it, but it is more frequent than accidental shootings.

[Prak]

I'll let you in on a little secret: few people actually train their dogs in any damned way.

Also, I'd rather deal with dogshit on the floor than my kid accidentally shooting his friend.

[Koumei]

A well-raised, not-inbred pitbull will generally have a lovely temperament and be your best friend. Our dog is part pit bull and he'll really act vicious to strangers if he thinks they're a threat (indeed, now that my sister lives alone, not including him, he's fairly protective of her), but you seriously can put your fingers in his mouth, take food away from him etc. The only injuries he's dealt to people were accidental (such as breaking my arm).

Now maybe my dog is just completely awesome (he is). But a big part of that is actually the upbringing of the dog (and not being inbred - we don't know his ancestry, it's basically "all of them" - pit bull, kelpie, heeler, dalmation, rhinoceros), and having a loving family.

[K]

Gun control laws apply only to law-abiding citizens. So the bad guys who kicked in my front door to rob my house are carrying, but I'm defenseless. I'm not interested in that.

Yes, you'd rather have a pitched gun battle in a populated area so that some of your neighbors can get killed by stray bullets. Simply locking yourself in a room or running out the back and then calling the cops so that the criminals can be arrested is not an option?

Of course, the point is moot since your chances of being the victim of a home invasion are pretty slim with about 62,531 per year of homes, which when compared to the 114 million households means that your yearly chance of getting a home invasion (which is legally a robbery at a residence) is 0.05 percent per year.

The vast majority of home invasions are criminals raiding other criminals for drugs, so just don't sling any crack or prescription pills out of your front-yard and you should be fine, but they do specifically target people with guns in the house, so just understand that the very thing that you think will keep you safe is actually making you less safe. The linked article has a local Sheriff's testimony for one community.

PS. Your dreams of uprising are adorable. It's like you want us to believe Predator drones won't kill you before you ever have a chance to get a shot off.

[Username17]

Would things have been different in Germany in the 1930s if the citizens had been armed?

The citizens were armed. Hitler had a private army. You know what that means? That means citizens who are armed. The SA weren't "the government", they were just random dudes who happened to have military grade weapons. The word "Freikorps" means an organized, armed, nongovernmental gang. That's what it means. Hitler had one of those. Actually, he had several, and ended up having one such group murder the leaders of another such group in 1934.

Organized private militias were an integral part of the fascist takeover of Germany, Italy, Spain, Hungary, and so on. And you know what organized, private militias are? Citizens with guns! The right-wing myth that Fascism could have been halted if there had only been right-wing gun owners at the time is completely insane. Fascism was right-wing gun owners. Not only did they exist, they were the actual problem.

-Username17

[Koumei]

Don't be silly, they weren't right wing: the name was Nationalist Socialists, it's there in the name, so they were clearly socialist lefties. Just like how if I call myself ice cream, I become cold and delicious!

[npc310]

The Nazis were not right-wing. This is one of the greatest left-wing myths of all time. The Nazis led a tyrannical, all-powerful government that forced people to comply with their will. They embraced a philosophy very similar to "spread the wealth around" in which everyone had the same level of wealth and society was completely classless. This was an odd mixture of both the German Nationalist movement, and the Socialist Party in Germany. Completely antithetical to anything the right-wing wants. The right-wing embraces individualism, and believes that the guy who works the hardest should be able to afford the biggest house on the block. In a socialist society, everyone is the same, whether you bust your ass at work all day, or take seven coffee breaks before lunch, you're the same. This lack of reward or incentive to the be the best is a big part of my personal dislike for left-wing ideals.

It is widely believed that because the Nazis were anti-communist that they were right-wing. The anti-communist bit was all about World War I and the reparations and restrictions placed on Germany in large part by the Soviets. The founder of the Nazi Party was much more anti-communist than he was conservative or "right-wing". Go read the wikipedia page for Nazi.

[Winnah]

...It is widely believed that because the Nazis were anti-communist that they were right-wing. The anti-communist bit was all about World War I and the reparations and restrictions placed on Germany in large part by the Soviets. The founder of the Nazi Party was much more anti-communist than he was conservative or "right-wing". Go read the wikipedia page for Nazi.

Hitler in Mein Kampf directly attacked both left-wing and right-wing politics in Germany, saying: "Today our left-wing politicians in particular are constantly insisting that their craven-hearted and obsequious foreign policy necessarily results from the disarmament of Germany, whereas the truth is that this is the policy of traitors [...] But the politicians of the Right deserve exactly the same reproach. It was through their miserable cowardice that those ruffians of Jews who came into power in 1918 were able to rob the nation of its arms."[18] However, a majority of scholars identify Nazism in practice as being a far-right form of politics.[2] When asked in an interview whether he and the Nazis were "bourgeois right-wing" as alleged by their opponents, Hitler responded that Nazism was not exclusively for any class, and indicated that it favoured neither the left nor the right, but preserved "pure" elements from both "camps", stating: "From the camp of bourgeois tradition, it takes national resolve, and from the materialism of the Marxist dogma, living, creative Socialism"

I could not help myself. Hitler was only a centrist if you believe Hitler. Do you believe Hitler?

[Ancient History]

By that argument, Somalia is the greatest right-wing argument of all time.

Frankly, I'm pissed of this bullshit myth of individualism. There is no point in human history where you can give as a golden age for individualists, there is no episode in human affairs where a human being restricted to only what they can provide for themselves has been better off than a human being that relies in part on others. You think farmers were individualists? Bullshit. Farmers are community-oriented people by necessity. They needed the manpower that coming together with your neighbors brings to raise barns, harvest crops, provide mutual assistance in times of hardship and sickness and natural disaster. Yeah, there are a couple Rambo types that can probably survive on their own naked in the woods for a while and they are welcome to go fucking do that. Even hunter-gatherers figured out it was easier going if they relied on other people.

Let's call it what it is: the Right Wing is all about fear - the fear of change, the feat of placing trust in others, the fear of processes they cannot understand, the fear of all who are not them. They wrap that in a flag and say "if you are not for me you are against me." I'm fucking sick of it.

[Maxus]

Perfection vs. Perfectibility.

The conservatives tries to recount the glory days of times gone by, trying to crouch in perceived perfection. Until challenged, their memories cloud over with nostalgia and remember only the preferable parts.

My own mother was complaining over teen pregnancy, blaming it on sexuality being in the media these days--movies, TV shows, etc. However, she's a pretty bright lady, so when I mentioned that girls who did get pregnant were ostracized if they didn't have a shotgun wedding, she admitted that they weren't treated well.

She conceded the point, and then admitted that maybe, just MAYBE, more modern attitudes are morally superior to abandoning teen moms and shunning them. Of course, Mom's a pretty fair lady who can usually tell when she's having some moments of sloppy thinking and at least tries to self-correct.

Liberals, ideally, should be informed by the concept of perfectibility. Things can be made better, we can make it closer to right. Liberals got the Suffrage Act passed in the United States. Liberals were also responsible for the Civil Rights act. That's what liberals should work for--identify a problem with society, work to fix it. Move on to the next thing.

There were horrible injustices involved at period in history, whether you go back to the 1950's, the 1900's, or the 1850's. There's even a group in England who spends all their time bitching about the Norman invasion in 1066 and spend their time whining about the Pro-Norman bias in the media.

That's conservatism. Conservative perfection is a hollow thing. It's stasis, trying to hold in place a perfect world that never existed to begin with. And don't insult the intelligence of anyone who's cracked open a book by telling them it ever DID exist.

Liberals are the ones at least nominally committed to making things better by removing injustices and flaws in society, so I guess I'm nominally committed to liberalism.

[DrPraetor]

Let's not get lost in the nomenclature here; npc310 is dead wrong and the terminology is irrelevant. It really doesn't matter if you believe Hitler that he was a centrist - to buff up my straw man a bit, in the early 30s the U.S. State Dept. also believed Hitler was a centrist.

Are we going to say that the KKK was centrist? They're definitely a citizen's militia, they're from right here in the good old U.S. of A., and they just wear suits over the robes to join the modern republican party. Does it matter if you call them centrists? Obviously it does not.

What matters is that Hitler was a very bad man, that he was supported by billionaires and business interests during a period of economic turmoil, using a sophisticated propaganda campaign that painted anyone who disagreed with him as an anti-German traitor, and with the backing of the "armed citizenry" that npc310 still thinks would've blocked his rise to power.

There are big differences between Hitler and the modern Republican party. For starters, Hitler had a large constituency for whom he delivered prosperity; the modern Republicans are constitutionally opposed to any such thing, they slavishly promote only policies that narrowly benefit the 0.01%, which prevents them from holding on to power.

But again, let's not lose the crucial original point - citizen's militias were pro-hitler, and the KKK and the Michigan Militia are both the same social phenomena that propelled Hitler to power.

[hyzmarca]

. You think farmers were individualists? Bullshit. Farmers are community-oriented people by necessity. They needed the manpower that coming together with your neighbors brings to raise barns, harvest crops, provide mutual assistance in times of hardship and sickness and natural disaster.

I don't think any Conservatives are opposed to voluntary cooperation and mutual assistance in times of hardship. In fact, they very much want to return to the days of friendly small town neighbor-helping-neighbor.

They rail against government sponsored welfare programs while at the same time encouraging personal and religious-based charity because there is a perception that government-run welfare creates an unaceptable free rider problem that just doesn't exist when good people give to their neighbors and churches.

This perception is, of course, bullshit, but it does explain how most anti-welfare people are actually pro-charity and pro-giving in general. They perceive the huge and bureaucratic welfare system to be full of frauds and lazy people who are buying custom Mercedes with solid-gold rims and subwoofers powerful enough to shatter windows half a mile away using government money Meanwhile, they thing that local charities and churches are helping people who actually need and deserve it.

[sabs]

Yeah, only the people RUNNING the charities are allowed to use the money to buy solid gold rims and Million dollar mansions.

[Username17]

I don't think any Conservatives are opposed to voluntary cooperation and mutual assistance in times of hardship.

You'd think that. But if you go down the conservative onion deep enough: yes. They really are against voluntarily cooperation.

The classic example is government spending and taxation. Conservatives start out by saying that they are against high deficits for some sort of technical reason. But then you ask them why they are for tax cuts if deficits are so important? The next layer comes out: Big Government is a problem and it is important to reduce its size. But then you push on that with how they aren't in favor of military cuts or maybe you point out the fact that government healthcare is more efficient than private healthcare or whatever. The next layer comes out: Rich people have a right to their earnings and taxing them is immoral. Push on that with maybe concepts of shared sacrifice of marginal utility, or the President's own very simple perspective that rich people already get a disproportionate benefit from society and it is unreasonable for them to not pay more for that benefit, and then the next layer. And then the one after that.

It's like the Global Warming debate, where every single layer of denial is prefaced with "Of course everyone accepts X, and you're arguing with a strawman to say otherwise, but the debate is still raging on Y". Even though one denialist essay's Y is another denialist's X and they are putting out materials from the same fucking office. But really, where it all comes down at the very bottom of the onion is in fact the idea that they shouldn't help you. Not even if it is in their interests. They just don't want to do it.

I leave you with Grover Cleveland, explaining why he was vetoing a $10,000 appropriation for drought relief in Texas:

though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people.

And that folks, is the bottom of the conservative onion. After you scrape away all the layers of "Nobody's really saying X, we're all saying Y" and get down to the dark and bitter heart of it: they just don't want to help you. Period.

-Username17

[DSMatticus]

Assault weapons are useful should we ever again need to rise up and overthrow a tyranical government. Admittedly, they'll have tanks and F-18s, but I'll take an AR-15 over only being able to yell "bang!".

That will never happen again in the U.S. I'm sorry to break it to you, but it's not the 1770's anymore and the pinnacle of military technology is not a musket so cheap and simple and easy to produce that pretty much everyone can have one, and formal military training includes better tactics and skills than "stand out in an open field and fire a gun." Any actual revolution that ever occurs in a world with a military as incredibly advanced, well-trained, and equipped as the U.S.'s will either depend on the military's support or non-intervention, or it will otherwise be social/civil and grounded in disobedience, not violent resistance.

A bunch of amateurs with no training in firearm use or military tactics and strategies are not going to rise up and overthrow the U.S. military. I repeat: guns do not make you a superhero, and simply holding one does not put you on the level of someone who has spent years of their life training with their use as though it were their job (because it is).

and believes that the guy who works the hardest should be able to afford the biggest house on the block.

No. That's not how capitalism works. Under capitalism, you make money by having capital. Basically, you are able to afford the biggest house on the block by already having the biggest house on another block. Pretending that rich people got rich by hard work is a lie from top to bottom. It's okay to be rich. It is not morally wrong. Sometimes, people do things which are terribly immoral to get rich, but being rich itself is not evil, and you don't have to sugarcoat it by pretending they deserve it; they're just luckier than the rest of us. That happens, and it's okay. Someone is going to lose their legs in a car accident in the future, and that doesn't mean we all need to hack off our legs to balance out the universe when it happens.

But you don't get rich by hard work. You get rich by luck of birth or luck in general. The free market has actually decided on a value for hard work; the backbreaking labor of being an untrained third-world laborer gets you less than a dollar an hour. That is your free market value if you bring nothing to the table but your willingness to work hard. Assuming Romney has worked 40 hours a week for 40 years, the total accumulated value of his "hard workingness" is $83,200, about .03% of his total net worth. The other 99.97% of his total net worth is coming from being born to a rich man in a first-world country, going to a prestigious college, being granted huge starting capital, and using his business and political connections to make a fortune from a fortune he already had.

In a socialist society, everyone is the same, whether you bust your ass at work all day, or take seven coffee breaks before lunch, you're the same. This lack of reward or incentive to the be the best is a big part of my personal dislike for left-wing ideals.

You have no idea what socialism is. I cannot stress that enough. But what's worse: you have no idea what the American left-wing stands for! You claim to hate them, and have absolutely no idea what they're advocating. You are one of the least politically educated conservatives we've had here. Like, you are in the "I watch nothing but Fox News" tier of misconceptions. Consider the following a friendly (or at least neutral) crash course in American left-wing politics and socialism.

The American left-wing are largely proponents of something called a mixed economy. A mixed economy is a combination of privately owned capital and means of production and state regulation and services. That's capitalism and market forces plus state intervention. For example: water lines? Government service, mixed economy feature. The FDA, which we had to create when business were selling meat with fatal bacteria? Government regulation, mixed economy feature. Forcing hospitals to treat emergency care patients even if they can't pay? Government regulation, mixed economy feature. Saving lots of lives. Unfortunately, the lack of health insurance on those people is driving up medical costs. Whatever, separate topic. Minimum wage? Government regulation, mixed economy feature. Keeps our service industry from looking like India's.

Now, in a mixed economy, if the market decides that your labor is more valuable, you get paid more. If the market decides that your labor is less valuable, you get paid more. Because those are all private business relationships. A mixed economy does not feature "everyone gets paid the same!" That's not an actual left-wing platform. The goal of mixed economy programs is to improve the economy, improve the standard of living, and create a "bare minimum" standard of living. Basically, the goal is to eliminate poverty, get everyone a job, get everyone an education if they want it, get everyone a retirement, get everyone healthy, get everyone some bare minimum amount of luxury that they can say "my life is okay," and if some people have seven cars and three houses on top of that, that's okay.

That's left-wing U.S. politics. It's actually fairly centrist. The U.S. left-wing looks like the rest of the western world's right-wing. But none of that is socialism, which is at its simplest: capital and the means of production are publicly owned. I.e., nobody owns 2.4% share of Microsoft. Microsoft is owned by the public, either shared by the Microsoft workers, the public directly, or the government. It's like the police station; a public service or utility. And that's it. That's the core feature of socialism. Socialism does not require that everyone be paid the same. It does not require that you pay trained professionals at the same rate as you pay untrained laborers. It does not require that you be absolutely retarded and pay people for slacking off 24/7, and you can still just fire people, and you can not pay them if they choose to not work. The only difference is that the profits from capital go into the hands of the public instead of the hands of capital owners.

If you're going to say you disagree with left-wingers/liberals/progressives, read this, take it to heart, and then do some more reading elsewhere. Because you currently have no idea what you're talking about. You are very misinformed.